Assessing Assessments for Organizational Practice

All personality assessments (particularly for behavioural preferences and communication styles) owe much to Carl Jung’s description of personality archetypes, and these relate directly to the four “humours” or “temperaments” described by Hippocrates some 400 years B.C.E. Even older is the evidence for testing individuals for job suitability. This has been dated to the time of China’s “Imperial Examination”, which was designed to select able candidates for specific government positions. Established by Sui Dynasty in 605 B.C.E., it was in use until 1905 – some 1,300 years later.

Among today’s wide variety of assessment instruments, some look to create a profile of a subject’s particular traits, while others focus on measuring a specific skill or aptitude. The former type are referred to as “ipsative”; three of this type we use in our work are:

The DISC assessment is based on the research of William Moulton Marston (“The Emotions of Normal People” 1928) and later work by John Grier (1958), and identifies four personality types: dominance; influence; steadiness and conscientiousness (DISC). Although DISC is based on Marston’s work – on the energy of behaviour and consciousness – he did not develop an assessment or test from his model. Others, such as John Grier, later did so. However, Marston applied his model and theory in Hollywood, at Universal Studios in 1930, when he helped them segue from melodramatic silent films to “talkies”.

Other assessments are designed to enable an organization to compare candidates for a position, and to coach and develop them to successful performance once on the job.

Based on a different model and set of assumptions, such instruments are referred to “normative”. We implement a suite of assessments from Profiles International® that consistently provide this sort of reliable, valid, and objective information. For instance, some of the key points reported on include

an individual’s “fit” with an organization’s culture;

knowledge, skills, job performance, and developmental needs;

preferred learning and communication styles, and

response to stress and workplace pressures.

The most important factor when considering these and other assessments is to determine which one is best for the situation and the individual(s) involved.